Evidence map›Paper›PMID 12659640›Full record

ArticleBMC health services research2003

Factors affecting general practitioners' decisions about plain radiography for back pain: implications for classification of guideline barriers--a qualitative study.

Ansgar Espeland, Anders Baerheim

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC health services research, 2003. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 50 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
50citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
2.7field-weighted citation impact, top 11% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

50 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 129 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Do "Myths" of low back pain exist among Irish population? A cross-sectional study.European journal of orthopaedic surgery & traumatology : orthopedie traumatologie · 2016
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Healthcare provider and patient perspectives on diagnostic imaging investigations.African journal of primary health care & family medicine · 2015
    Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Ansgar EspelandSection of Radiology, Institute of Surgical Sciences, University of Bergen, Haukeland University Hospital, N-5021 Bergen, Norway. aesp@haukeland.no
Anders Baerheim
University of Bergen · NO

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundGeneral practitioners often diverge from clinical guidelines regarding spine radiography. This study aimed to identify and describe A) factors general practitioners consider may affect their decisions about ordering plain radiography for back pain and B) barriers to guideline adherence suggested by such factors.

methodsFocus group interviews regarding factors affecting ordering decisions were carried out on a diverse sample of Norwegian general practitioners and were analysed qualitatively. Results of this study and two qualitative studies from the Netherlands and USA on use of spine radiography were interpreted for barriers to guideline adherence. These were compared with an existing barrier classification system described by Dr Cabana's group.

resultsThe factors which Norwegian general practitioners considered might affect their decisions about ordering plain radiography for back pain concerned the following broader issues: clinical ordering criteria, patients' wishes for radiography and the general practitioner's response, uncertainty, professional dignity, access to radiology services, perception of whether the patient really was ill, sense of pressure from other health care providers/social security, and expectations about the consequences of ordering radiography. The three studies suggested several attitude-related and external barriers as classified in a previously reported system described by Dr Cabana in another study. Identified barriers not listed in this system were: lack of expectancy that guideline adherence will lead to desired health care process, emotional difficulty with adherence, improper access to actual/alternative health care services, and pressure from health care providers/organisations.

conclusionsOur findings may help implement spine radiography guidelines. They also indicate that Cabana et al.'s barrier classification system needs extending. A revised system is proposed.

Indexed as

Practice Guidelines as TopicAdultAttitude of Health PersonnelDecision MakingFamily PracticeFemaleFocus GroupsGuideline AdherenceHealth Care SurveysHumansLow Back PainLumbar VertebraeMaleMiddle AgedNorwayPatient Satisfaction

Identifiers

PMID12659640
PMCPMC153534
OpenAlexW1523304188

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.